KaZaa Suspends Downloads 382
chill writes: "'Download Temporarily Suspended -- Download of the KaZaA Media Desktop software is temporarily and voluntarily suspended pending Dutch court decision on January 31. We apologise for the inconvenience. Please check back at www.kazaa.com for more information.'
--- Both the Linux and Windows client downloads are offline. I wonder what the judge thinks this will do to the tens, if not hundreds of thousands who already have the software?"
even funnier (Score:2, Insightful)
How does this solve anything? (Score:1, Insightful)
What to do: (Score:1, Insightful)
No doubt a similar fear campaign could be orchestrated in other demographics.
The legal system, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
''Never in human history has technology allowed the big to crush the small with so little effort, and never have the laws and infrastructure of the world been so set up to expedite this process. [...] In reality, the legal system is a nasty, ugly thing that unless you have a great deal of time, resources and money, you're up the creek.''
He also explores the various myths of how the system works. For example -
Myth #1: What matters is who is right. Sorry, wrong -- it matters who is willing to spend the most money proving they are "right."
- and on it goes.
I wish these guys well with their fight
Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Even if the stupid Kaaza client is no longer available, Morpheus still is, and is a lot more popular a client anyways. That's like trying to shut down the WWW by banning Netscape.
2) Morpehus/Kaaza suck anyways. Even though the idea behind it is pretty genius, in practice their software sucks. Besides crashing constantly, being spyware, bloatware, and every other type of negative ware there is, and just plain being a crappy client, there is no friggin music on their network. I try searching for something somewhat well known but not quite mainstream, say "The Descendents", and I get 0 results back. And any results I do get download at 1.1 k/sec, despite claiming the user has a bandwith of "300" whatever that means. Worst of all you can only get mp3s of up to 128kpbs. I'll stick with WinMX or eDonkey2000 for now. There are plenty of alternatives to Kaaza/Morpheus that don't suck ass.
Re:Only a matter of time (Score:2, Insightful)
KaZaA does not condone activities and actions that breach the copyright of artists and copyright owners - as a KaZaA user you are bound by the KaZaA Terms of Use and laws governing copyright in each country.
Slow down cowboy? Maybe I just type too fast...
Re:The legal system, etc. (Score:2, Insightful)
resolution (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Way to go BUMA/STEMRA! (Dutch record company mob), a fine example of clear thinking...
Re:The legal system, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only power they have is the legal system, and they are forced to utilize it.
Note: I'm not passing judgement on who's right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that "the big" have their side to the whole "digital rights" story too. It would be stupid to expect them to give up and walk away.
Re:What to do: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The legal system, etc. (Score:2, Insightful)
But that's what the parent post is all about - they got big off of a system that would not work if it were brought in brand-new today, and now that they're big, they can crush opposition. Of course they don't want to adapt when what they've been doing has gotten them so much cash. The point is that the law allows obsolete business practices to litigate their way through a few more years of survival - hurting a lot of entrepreneurs and innovators in the process.
Apportioning blame (Score:5, Insightful)
A. Courts squash what they can define.
Just like America turned (rightly or wrongly) a non-nation-state terrorism incident into an old-fashioned "my country vs. yours" war, courts/governments will try and shut down companies with business models that (they argue) are based on piracy and individuals that write "harmful code".
<pessimism>
The day someone anonymously builds a true peer2peer network that scales well [slashdot.org] and people choose it ahead of something with advertising in it, the genie really will be out of the bottle. Sadly, that's when governments will decide that "anti-supply" laws we're talking about now are useless, and the "anti-demand" laws will get tougher - in essence, they'll start going after 'users' rather than 'dealers'.
</pessimism>
Re:What a difference a day makes. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Morpheus still up.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I have read (in the leaked RIAA memo on fasttrack) that if the authentication servers are unreachable, the software will connect to the network without authenticting. It comes with a long list of peers to try connecting to, which whenever it connects. If this is true, and kazaa etc. vanish with their servers, the software should keep working.
On the other hand, I have read (in the New York Times article on video trading yesterday) that FastTrack have the ability to shut down the software remotely. And this would seem to be borne out by the time they forced everyone to upgrade to version 1.33. (Though maybe this was accomplished in the authentication process.)
Re:Serves ya right, you cheap bastards. (Score:3, Insightful)
OK. I'd like to pay to download songs. Where do I sign up?
Here's the answer: nowhere. Your options are: either drive down to your nearest record store and pay for pressing, shipping, handling, packaging, advertising, sales assistance, cashiering, and post-sale security checks; or you can download it for free. What am I supposed to do if I like one particular song and would like a legal, electronic copy of it?
The issue isn't about opression, or stealing being some kind of right. It's about a market that's unsatisfied.
Hollywood makes billions of dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, they, as a group, have a monopoly on the creation of new fictional entertainment... Does this give you ideas?
If hollywood could (say) get even a small part of the communications (aka, the delivery) pie, they'd make more money a year than they do now.
Does this give you ideas for other sources of revenue? Make everything literally free (to download) on the internet. With, maybe, a royalty on home-user (IE, non-business) bandwidth, with statistical sampling to determine how much of that royalty should go to which entertainment industries for mass-market entertainment. Maybe add in hard drives or cd blanks. Basically, make something similar to the Audio-CDR mechanism.
After all, if they increased home telephone/communication bills by even 10% for such a royalty. 100 million people spending $100/month (cable, telephone, internet), with a 10% royalty toward entertainment production starts moving into the billions of dollars/year range.
Not only that, but suddenly there is MUCH less fighting over copyrights, hollywood doesn't have to worry about extra duplication, caues every duplication is more profit for them. It lets people do whatever they want on and with their computers.
Yeah, its annoying, and if you only backup your hard drive onto CD's, you're subsidizing brittney spears. But on the other hand, it *will* give hollywood billions and billions of dollars, and stop digital control technology.
And, in such a world, napster/gnutella/morpheus for movies would be the best thing ever for movies. 10x the bandwidth, means 10x the money coming in! Furthermore, they could make even more money from premium servers where you pay, but you get high-quality, uncorrupted, fast downloads.
The idea is to not fight humanity, but try to go along with them.
I heard about this idea, oh, about 3 years ago.
So, what do you think.
Re:The legal system, etc. (Score:1, Insightful)
WRONG, it's business AND art. any product that an individual puts a piece of themselves into may be deemed art, though, from code to furniture to buildings and so on. that people shouldn't be allowed to receive compensation for "art" is a ridiculous notion.
regarding the "ugly monsters" such as Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys, they exist only because consumers are willing to pay the prices they do for their music, shows, merchandise, etc. You may not like them, but obviously it meets a large demographic, as they are some of the most succesful pop stars to date.
You may not like Britney or her music, but ultimately the consumers, not the record companies, are to blame for her success. Your anger is misdirected. You should really be mad at your little sister and her friends I suppose.
Besides, britney's existence isn't denying you from other music. It's all out there. Nobody record exec is going to storm into you house, turn your radio knobs to KISSFM and replace all your cd's for the latest n*sync album (but again, your sister/daughter/niece might do that). if you want heart and soul, go find it.
Re:The legal system, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hang on a minute while I just choke quietly in the corner. The only power? So, a big business can buy the laws they want through political bribes (aka campaign contributions), can have courts stop just about any activity they like (prima facia, before any guilt has been proven), and then can keep anybody they like in court until the little guy runs out of money and has to settle or starve, and that's the only power they have?
What more do they need? Well, it would be nice if they could get laws passed that effectively allow them to instruct their government to provide paramilitary enforcers to imprison individuals either at home or abroad, but that's beyond the realms of fantasy, surely?
Oh, wait, remind me, why did I buy that "Free Dmitri" T-shirt? How's Jon Johansson doing these days?
Only the legal system. God help us all.
ill bite (Score:5, Insightful)
Intellectual Property is a fiction, it is not property (as in tangible asset) at all. The act of creation ceases when the work is born, only in the 'intellectual property world" does a producer feel the right to control a work once he has borne it. Does a plumber call you and ask for a fee every time you flush your toilet? No, neither should a musician, actor, author or inventor ask for fees to exercise the purpose of their past creation. Meaning, that by its regular availability, the thing *has been created* and no further compensation is necessary.
If I copy a book, I am creating a book. The original author was not present or required to make my copy - why should he be compensated? If a creator feels he needs to reach some artificial economics of scale to make his time worthwhile, thats his issue -- i refuse to have *MY* liberties eroded to enforce a concept of capitalist business practice. The creator has no business telling me what I may or may not do with my own time and equipment.
Intellectual Property, (Copyright, Trademarks and Patents) have no place in an intellectually free society. Intellectual Property is a tool of economics and not a 'rightful property by inalienable human right' -- to suggest such is absolutely ridiculous. It is neither a 'right' nor a natural, self-evident thing. It is a concept, a construct, an agreement... and those who would use it as a economic hammer are no longer entitled to it.
I no longer purchase any item that would re-enforce this system. I copy all my music CDs*, I download movies and use the library for all books and magazines. I also advocate the rest of us do as well.
Ideas dont exist in a vacuum, and to suggest that a creation of the mind has a sole creat or with inalienable right to then control it is offensive to the rest of us.
* Canadians, because our government collects a fee for the RIAA types with every CDR sold, are legally allowed to make copies of Music CDs OTHERS have bought at record stores. Stop buying and burn those discs!
Re:ill bite (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that is what i am saying. If I write a song. only the activity of writing it should be compensated - not the use of it after it has been performed/written. The * act * of creation should be compensated. Simple. If i was a carpenter, would I collect a fee for every comfy-night you spend in bed??? NO!
It is exactly the same, patents and copy-written material are not magic. If they exist then the work required to create them has ceased. It is in the past -- what makes these things so special that their control, and the 'right' of the builder causes such a pile of ill-logic and nonsense as copyright and patent law?
You sir are a LEECH.
And you excrete dogma without a mite of critical thought. You are a PUPPET.
It's precisely this sort of attitude that Copyright is designed to thwart.
No, copyrights were granted to people to protect them from printing press owners. Copyright was granted to a person so he could sell his works. Capitalists have, by making themselves legal-persons (amongst other plutocratic-borne legislation in the USA), granted themselves copyrights... the concept was built to protect a person from publishers. Not publishers from people. Dont try and pretend this is not the case, it is indisputable and intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. This discussion is not a debate -- as in public debate as an exercise -- are you honestly presenting this as your opinion?
removing the incentives and rewards of creating will lead to a decline in creation.
Untrue. Intellectual Property was created all through time -- it is society itself... without copyright and patents the mechanisms through which people would have incentive would change. Was Matisse given a copyright? Mozart?
RIAA is trying to protect itself, and it's monopoly on the distribution of music, they're not attempting to foster the creation of music.
Agreed.
but that doesen't justify deliberately flaunting the law, nor taking away from the creators the rightful earnings.
Actually it does. Civil disobedience is an act of a free society. If 50%+1 of the population decides to ignore a law it should be changed - the consequences are ours to reap. If it proved true that creation ceased when copyright ended (it wouldnt) then the people would pay the consequence -- or make a new offer to potential producers. Not being a 'producer' in this dynamic doesnt mean we are with out rights. If the persons (like yourself) willing to accept this construct + the creators ("artists" (or RIAA))
But that is how (im sure you would agree) a democratic and free society should work. Im not suggesting the USA is this place, but that is another issue, and a much bigger problem.
When you say "I copy all my music CDs", you're committing piracy plain and simple.
No, by law, in Canada I am fully entitled to do this. My government has changed the construct of copyright to encourage the act. It is not "piracy".
http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq03.html#S3-33-2 [cdrfaq.org]
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#copy_for_frien
If you don't PAY for it, and you don't get it via available LEGAL means, you're still not entitled to STEAL it.
Life is not about money. Watching a movie or listening to music has zero effect on the producer (no incremental cost) - what part of this basic problem with the capitalist-economics of copyright are you not understanding?
Re:IMHO, wasn't it something else? (Score:4, Insightful)
The US refused to show the Taliban the evidence they claim they have against bin Laden. Afganistan also has not extradition treaty with the US. The Taliban was therefore justified under international law to not extradite bin Laden.
Re:What to do: (Score:1, Insightful)